Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-08-10; Planning Commission; MinutesA I ; '., ', 'S8 ', I i CITY OF CARLSBAD I Minutes 0-F: PLAHNIf1G COMr-iISSIO?4 :Date of heting: August 10, 1965 :Time of Meeting: 7:30 P.M. i-P~-a-~e_p_f_-!~e_e_~~-t"ng;,,~-4~-~Cj-3,,€-~amS>Rr~ 0 I I I I I I I I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Munn, I : Palmateer, McCarthy, HcComas, Lamb and Freistadt.; ! Commissioner Slrtherland was absent. Also present! :were City Attorney tJilson, Ass't City Engineer : I Thornton, Planning Director Schoell and Building { : Inspector Osburn. ! Vi ce-Chai rman I4cComas we1 comed General blunn to thi i Planning Commission. I I ! General Nunn stated he was glad to be a member of! i the Planning Commission and hoped to be of value :to the City of Carlsbad I :: 11 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: jMunn ::i;ii ::It, I27, 1965, were approved as submitted. i Lamb : $!xi ; : I I I I I I I I I I 8 I ::::;: I I I ipalmateer : ; !xi ; ; I (a) Edinutes of the regular meeting of July fYlcCarthy !x: :x; i ! I :McComas i : : ; X I I I IFreistadt I : i i : )c: I I I i::::: i MRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I i::::: I I I 1:::: I (a) Counci 1 action on Planning Hatters was i 1;;;;: I ::;;:: '*I,*; I (b) There were no other written communica- i:::;; I I ::::;: I * I I !ii:ii I I 11;: I I I !i'lII I I I I' :I;: I I I 1;::;; 1 I I i::::i I I :;ll;I 4:;:; I (a) VARIANCE, continued - Applicant: Donald I ;;::;: ;'!!;; !A. Briggs, Jr. I I ;: I I I I:!;:# I: "I;:! !The Planning Director explained that the lot splii ::; :had not been completed. I I:;::: I I ii:;:; I I I1 :MR. DON BRIGGS, JR., stated that he had just re-! I:':;: :;;;;; iceived some of the forms regarding the lot split i :::;:i :and did not know how long it wi 11 take to com- I I ::::I, iplete them. He asked for a continuation of this I :;'t@I ;;:;:; I heari ng . 1 I I:@ ::i: I I I 1:;::: :The City Attorney stated that normally the Com- i i:4:: :mission does not take action unless there is a : 1:;::: !lot split approved. If it is with the consent of! ::;I:: ::;:;: :the applicant, it can be continued. I 8 :::i:i ii4r. Briggs consented to have the hearing continued. iIiiI{ I I I ::;:i: I (b) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-3 and i :I ll; ::;:;I I p;l:l I I $4:: I I I 1:::;; I I I It I I :a8 i noted. i tfons. I 8 I i ORAL COMP4UNICATIONS: 8 I :;I:a' !There were no oral communications. !PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I I I *I I #I I I 8 8 ::;I;* I I iR-1-7.5 to C-1 ( Neighborhood Commercial) on pro-; :::i:: :perty on the southerly side of Tamarack Ave., be-: ::;;;; *l188; itween Pi0 Pic0 Dr. and Adams St. Applicants: !Jerry L. Rombotis, et al. I :-I;: !Notice of hearing was read. Secretary ikCarthy i ::i::: :certified that notice of the public hearing was ! ::;:;: :published and sent to the property owners in the : ::I::: :area, and then read the application. ;l:;I; I I ;::;:; I I I ;::;:; :The Planning Director exhibited on the board a : ;::;:; :site development plan of the area between Pi0 Picd, ;::::; ;::;:; :Tamarack and Adam presented by the applicant. I I :::;:: I II'I'I I I I ;::;:; I I 1:;;;* I I :::;:i I I :::;:; I I I :;::I; I I I I I I I 8 * I I I I I : ;*:;I; l!!l!I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ; " ', .. " ', *\, 1 I '*, ,,;., '*' '., ', I I I I '., =\., '.' " '' I I I I Name *?$A i I I : of '\$*q&, '*, .*. , I : Member .?&rO\g'gi+, QQ.+%e'a8; I I I I I:::;; I -2- ., , ' '. '- s, $& *,,''+ I :""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""~~"""-"""""-""--,---- i There were two letters objecting to this reclass; ;;: $4 ::: ; ification read: ::: I ::: Letter dated 7/18/65, 3945 Highland Drive signed! :x::: I by Gordon A. Johnston, Jane E. Johnston, ::;@*I I* : Bradford A. Johnston and Rosemary A. Johnston.: :::, I:: I :::::: 4 I :::Ill I* I I ii;!:! I 1 ::::i: I I I pi;;: Vice-chairman NcComas announced the Commission i :::::! : would now hear from the applicants or their I I ::!::: I :::::: I representative. I I :::::: I) I NR. I4IKE FORTUNATE, 956 Tamarack Ave. stated I I pii;: ;::I:: 18 i that the application is for land with no improve; 4::;; : ments on it. It has freeway access and traffic I:::;; I gGing to the lagoon passes by this property. He: ::::I; :::::; : stated that he had reviewed site development i: standards with the Planning Director and they ! 1::;; : are wi lling to comply with them. The proposed i ;:::I; ;1:1:1 i shopping center is designated to be compatible : I:;:+ : with the neighborhood. He pointed out that 1,: I li:::: I when people are buying a home they always I i:!:!; : inquire how close it is to a shopping area. ;:::': *I I I ;::::; C. H. MATTHIESEN, 3960 Adams Street, stated that! I('1)I :::::: ; he has no objections to this proposed shopping i :I I::: center and he would rather see this go in than : ;::;;; II a school, church or apartments, as this would ;:I/' i not have as much traffic as r.rith some other uses:, '1;; ;:!::: I (It I; i The Chairman announced the Commission would I:;:;I b ::;:;: : now hear from those wishing to speak in opposi- i ::;:;: 8 ,'I( i tion. * I:;::, I I ;;I:I; ;::::; CLINTON PEDLEY, 314 Date Avenue, stated that he i ; owns property on Tamarack easterly of this * ::;::; I property and that commercial property blights I ;::I:: I:::;; : residential property. He stated that he doubts ; i::::, i if anyone wants to build a nice home near a I I ::::;; : market. There are schools near there and ! heavy traffic during the summer going to the i 1::::: ; beach. He stated there are no sidewalks in I I II 'I; i certain areas on Tamarack and his property would! :::!:I i be affected by an unattractive market. Commercial ;::;:; : zoing should not penetrate east of the Freeway. I :i:;;: i;!;;: i He also stated that the applicants do not live ; ;:'I:: : in the City and are not interested in the i comnluni ty . I I ::;::I i JEROME SILVIO, stated that he lives at the south; :{'::: :;:;;: : west corner of Chinquapin and Adams and is much :::::: I opposed to this reclassification for .the same : ;I::;: : reasons expressed by Mr. Pedley. I i::::: I I ,l::I; ;::I:, ! i4R. M. kJ. JARVIE, 1175 Hoover, stated that he wa> :iii!i i not in favor or against this reclassification : i::::: : and was on the Planning Comriission when the C-7 ii!!;; ;: i was granted on the corner of Tamarack and Pi0 : Pico, and has lived around the corner from this : ::ii:: 8: i property for about 20 years. He stated that i :;::I; i the zoning on his property is restrictive and : 'I:;:: : felt the CommSssion should give consideration to: ::I::; i zoning the property around the lagoon for a higher ii!:!; : use as his taxes have gone up 75%. He also I iIiIii i stated that little neighborhood stores do not ! :'l:l: : pay these days as people go to shopping centers.! ;::::: :::::: I ;:;;" I ;::141 :: I 1:;:;. I I ;al;l: I I I :i:::: I ;Ill I I :+;:; * '1,;Il I I I I Letter dated 9/26/65 from Marjorie Wheldon, 1085 Chinquapin Ave. I I I I I I I I* I I I I I I I' I8 I I I I I I I I I * I ;#I :;:;I' ::ii I I I 11::1: ;::::; I I II 81 I I 4 'I* 01 I b I I I I b I 4 I I I I I I :I:!:: h I The Chairman ask?d Mr. Fortunati if he wished to! speak, and Mr. Fortunati stated that he would : like to make some corrections to the statements that were made as the applicants do reside in : the City of Carlsbad and the shopping center I I would include sidewalks that he did not see around the Pedley property, and the blighted areas referred to around the eAisting shopping i centers in the City were there before the I I shopping centers were built. I I I I I I I 8 I I I Nr. Fortunati reported sending out 112 cards to I I t::li.. :lCne(.: tpcy approved of the shopping center I ! and t? cards indicated they were opposed to it. : He gave these cards to the Commission to review.: fie stated they were also willing to dedicate : property for street right of way and to put in i ! the improvements on Tamarack. When questioned : i if they would build the building and own the lan4, : Mr. Fortunati stated he could not say at this : i time, but that it will either be Alpha Beta or : themselves. The proposed shopping center wi 11 i i b? similar to Lake San Marcos Shopping Center. : ! The public hearing was closed at 8:15 P.M. i There was considerable discussion on placing I restrictions on reclassifications. The Planning I I Director explained that on reclassifications i there were two things that needed to be proven; : : the need for more land for this type of use, and! i whether this land is best suited for this type ; : of use. He explained that this parcel of I property is divided into R-7, R-3 and C-1 zones,: : and that a feasibility study had been prepared i I by Alpha Beta. He explained that the neighbor- ; hood shopping center is planned to fill the need! i of the neighborhood, and that C-1 property can be : bui It up to the front property line but he felt i i the? setbacks should conform to the setbacks of : I the residential area. Trees would have to be 8 I p'lanted by the developer in addition to the treei planted by the City. The City has a proposed i : ordinance requiring 3% of the whole parking area ; i to be planted and landscaped so the people lookirfg : down on this would not see just a blacktopped : I area. He presented a report of his findings mad4 : to the Conmission and stated if the Commission ! felt there was a need for a neighborhood shoppin$ i center in the area, this would be the best site i : for it. 1 I Points discussed were the parking facilities, thd i extension of Harrison Street and the Freeway, I * : that Alpha Beta's parking requirements were more : i stringent than the City's; that the property to : : the west is already zoned commercial and they can! now build without putting in trees and plantings;: i that this hearing had been continued for some : time; concern over good planning, aesthetic con- : trols, proper sign controls; that this would be i : the first "planned" shopping center in the City; i precise planning in Section 1503. i The Planning Director stated that the existing i I service station would remain and gnless Harrison : i Street goes through there, the service station : will not be affected. property owners in the area, and 33 v;rote'.and others I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I t 8 I I I I 4 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I * 8 * # I I I I I 8 I 8 8 I L I I I ! ,- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -4- I : of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I ,- D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Commissioner Palmateer stated that sinct: $/,le Commission is studying a master plan for the Citk and it has not been accepted yet, he would like : to see the reclassification delayed until some : of these matters are settled, although he felt this is a logical place for a neighborhood shopping center and at a later date he might be i agreeable to It. He stated the Master Plan will! be like a "Bible" and the City will tend to t I abide by it. He felt this location is logical i for land use but it would be better to work I l out the Master P1 an first. Commissioner McCarthy stated that his reasons I for denying the application a year ago had not i changed, and he felt a more logical place for a ; shopping center would be farther east in the I City and there is no need for it at the present ; time; that Adams is a narrow street and nothing i has been said about widening Adams Street; D l that most people do not like to live where they i overlook a shopping center. I I I I I 4 I I I I I * 1 Mr. Fortunati pointed out that they were faced : with the study of the Master Plan a year ago 8 I last August when they asked for this reclassifi-i cation and yet C-2 zoning had been granted across the FreCway since that time; that the Industrial: Committee was in agreement with having commercia) zoning at this location. I 1 PIR. FORTUNATI AND MR. JERRY ROMBOTIS, stated that they as owners of the land are in favor of the following property development standards fori the property shown on the site development exhi-; bit. F4r. Fortunati read to the Commission the i following property development standards he and : bir. Rombotis desired included: I I 1. An eight foot wide strip of land extending! the full width of the lots along Tamarack Ave. i shall be deeded to the City of Carlsbad for I I street widening purposes. 2. Setback requirements for yards facing on ! Tamarack Ave. and Adams Street shall conform to i adjacent residential setbacks. This yard may be: used for off-street parking except for the five i feet adjacent to the property line. The five : feet adjacent to the property line shall be I I landscaped with trees and other plants and main-! tained as a buffer between commercial and resi- ; dcnti a1 uses. 3. A six foot high solid masonry wall shall i be erected along the south property line to separate the proposed C-1 zone from adjacent R i zones. Such wall shall terminate at the front yard setbacks of said R zones. A five foot wide: planting area shall extend the full length of i the masonry wall and shall be landscaped with : trees and other plants and maintained as a buffet between commercial and residential uses. 4. In addition to the landscaped areas re- quired in (3) above, at least three percent of i the area required for off-street parking shall ; be planted and maintained with trees listed .on i the City Official Street Tree List. I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ', \\ ., * ' . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8, \' \' \ *' I -5- I I I I I I I (a) Planted in accordance with the require- ! I (b) Contained in planting areas with a I I (c) Located throughout the off-street parkin4 i ments of Ordinance No. 9174. I I i minimum dimension of four feet. I areas in order to obtain the maxirnum amount of I i dispersion. I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 5. All landscaped areas shall be served by a blubblers and/or sprinklers. I I I 6. All plans for such landscaped areas shall i be approved by the Carlsbad Planning Department : I 7. No trash or any other items shall be I I 8. All signs shall be wall signs in confor- I : water irrigation system and be supplied with I I I I i prior to the construction of the parking lot. i stored, stacked or otherwise placed outside the I : walls of the buildings. : mance with Section 3.27-27 of Article 1 of the : i Carlsbad City Code. No other signs shall be I I I a1 1 owed. i installed to comply with the Standard plans and : : specifications of the City of Carlsbad. I I ! The following resolution was presented: : A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 403 i :::;:I 11 i recommending to Council change of zone from R-3 i I::;:' : and R-1-7.5 to C-1 subject to the conditions i listed above, for the following reasons: I I I I b I I I rc I I I 1 I 9. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters shall be 1 I t ;::::: I I ;:*1:1 I I I 1::::: I :;::;: I I 1:;1:: I ::;;+ I I I I ::i:;: I I :::I:! I 1. That the land is level and is a very suit- :::::I I 2. That allowing a neighborhood shopping center :;;::I i::::: ;::1:1 I I ;::::: I I I ;::;;: ;i::;: ::)G:: I I I I i able interchange corner for commercial developme!t. :::Il: i to be built on this land conforms with the gen- ; : erally acceptable practice for location of such i til;*; i centers. : Planning Commission Resolution No. 403. A RESOL- Munn i FTION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE : Palmateerj : ;xi I i FROM R-3 AND R-1-7.5 TO C-1 OM PROPERTY AT THE i LlcCarthy I : :x; : i SOUTHERLY SIDE OF TAHARACK AVENUE BETWEEN PI0 McComas i i hi : i : PIC0 DRIVE AND ADAMS STREET, was adopted by tit?G Lamb :x; I i I Freistadt: 1'1111 :xx: i i A short recess was called at 9:19 Rid. Reconvene$ ::;i:; : at 9:28 P.M. L l!!I!! I - I only and further reading waived. 1 i I I I i::::: I I I I I I I (c) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in thg i required side yard setbacks on the Southerly and : Easterly sides from 10' to 5'; a reduction in I I i front yard setback on the Southeasterly corner i I of the property fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard I : from 15' to property line; and a reduction in.*thi i front yakd 'setbick on Ocean St. from 15' to 5'. , : on property located at 3120 Ocean Street, on the : i Easterly side of Ocean Street between Oak and i : Pine Avenues. Applicant: Charlotte F. Leftwich.: ; Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary cert- i i ified that notice of public hearing tlas given to : : the property owners in the area and then read the application and the signatures of property i i owners in the area approving these variances. i There was no correspondence on this matter, I 8 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I I I !The Chairman announced the Commission would now :hear from the applicant or her representative and; !any others wishing to speak in favor of this ap- ! :plication. * * ii4R. ED LEFTWICH, 3100 Ocean Street, explained i that the request for variance was to construct I :the proposed building shown on the architectural : I rendering on the wall. The building is proposed i : for 3 1/2 stories with subterranean parking with : !2 exits out on Ocean St. which would cut down on i :traffic hazards on Carlsbad Blvd. They would be : !using less than 60% of the land. He explained I i that the front yard variance on Ocean St. is :necessary to permit construction of a bridge in : i front over the driveway and there would be a couri :in the center of the property. He called atten- : tion to the commercial properties adjacent to his! :property to the South where the hamburger stand : !is, and on Carlsbad Blvd., and that 90% of the !property to the north are enjoying the same :variances that he is requesting and that these i I variances will interfere with no one. They have : :an apartment building under construction now to jthe north of this property, He explained that if! :these variances are not granted it will be neces-: jsary for them to enter from Carlsbad Blvd. iHALTER ZUETELL, 167 kflaple Ave., Carlsbad, stated I jthat he is a newcomer from Scottsdale, Arizona, : :and has seen this type of building put up in !Arizona and sees no reason for objecting to this i :plush development. He pointed out the commercial i :property around there and that according to the : !code i4r. Leftwich could put in 30 units and still! i comply with the zoning. He stated that he is I I :most happy to be a resident and property owner : jand taxpayer of Carlsbad and this development wilf : be one of the best in the City. I I :The Chairman announced the Commission would now :hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. I !There was no one present desiring to speak in op-i i position. s I :The public Rearing was closed at 9:43 P.M. i The Planning Director explained there would be :more use of R-3 property in the future and more i i than 50% of the people living in town wi 11 be :living in apartments. He pointed out the require: iaents needed for granting a variance and reviewed: i the facts resulting from the staff investigation.: : He felt there should be greater space 4etween re-i jsidential and commercial zones for a buffer and ; :that is would be detrimental to the people living! ! in the apartments to reduce the setbacks in this : :case. He referred to the land use study showing i R-3 property use. He pointed out that Ocean St. : :is a narrow, congested street with a 15 miles per: jhour speed limit. I I :MR. LEFT1.JICI-I asked for a rebuttal and the City ! :Attorney stated that normally they do not have i !a rebuttal since this is a staff report. IlilR. LEFTliJICH stated he would have made a differen! !presentation earlier if he had known of the Plan-: : ning Director's report. I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I * I I I & I I I I I I I I I I I : I I a+ii ii:;l; !Commissioner Lamb asked Mr. Leftwich to speak. ;::@:I I I I!!:!: i iJR. LEFTHICt! reported that most of Ocean St. is ;occupied and this is one of the last pieces of : !property to develop. He explained that it is i I feasible to develop the property as 6,000 sq. ft.: lots which would permit them to build within 5' : of the side yard. He stated their property could: :not be compared to the property to the north. On I I a study he made of the property to the north, 36 : : residences on the west side are enjoying vari- I i ances comparable with what they are asking and ! : on the easterly side there are 18. He referred i i to Section 1802, paragraph 2. They are planning : :to build 2-bedroon1, 1400 sq. ft. apartments and i i if the rentors are going to be bothered with gas I : and fumes they would move out. He felt that 36 ; i 1-bedroom apartments, renting at $110. per month,I :would only downgrade the area. He called atten- ; I tion to the unique feature in that the property i had just been assessed as the most valuable piece: : of property on Ocean St. and that his property :State Division of Parks and Beaches is consider- i jing dead-ending Ocean St. at Carlsbad Blvd. and : :he felt that it would be better to enter the pro-j i perty from Ocean St. rather than Carlsbad Blvd. : i tie asked that he be granted the same privilege I and rights given to other property owners and i :pointed out that most of the people within 300' I Iwere agreeable to these variances. He stated thaf i he could put up more buildings without variances,! : but could build nicer apartments if the variancas: are granted. He explained that the building I I :would conform to the 35' height limit; that the i building would be around 31 or 32 ft. high and : : tf-tat the elevator housing will be under 35'. I 1 - i The parking for people going to the beach was disj ; cussed and i4r. Leftwich stated that it was his : i understanding that the State Park will put in a i : parking lot, He reported having a wood fence in I i front of his property that was knocked down, and ; : is anxious for the State to finish their off- i street parking facilities. i Mr. Thornton explained that they have been working I with the Division of Beaches and Parks and at the: I present time they have a plan to have diagonal : : parking on the beach side and one way access to i i same with a traffic barrier and two way traffic : : for Ocean Street in front of this parcel of land: i along the entire length of Ocean Street on the : Easterly side and would require 4' to 5' from i i the Leftwich and Paine properties for sidewalk ; : purposes. i FIR. LEFTWICH stated that was the reason they are I i asking for a 5' front yard setback was to be I : able to give 5' for the sidewalk without moving i the whole building. I I i The Building Inspector explained that the struc- i I ture is proposed to be built with the swimming I pool above in the front yard in order to have i subterranean parking underneath, and they are : required to have a fence around the swimming pooli I however they cannot have a fence over 4:" in thei)-. : front yard, so the variance is necessary to carry: i out these plans. I I I ' .- i is across the street from the State Park. The : 9 I I I I 8 I I I I I which would require 5' maximum of street dedicatibn I I I I I I I I 6 I * I I I I I I I I ! i- c- I I ', ., .\ '\ 8, " I I I \, ," ' -' 8 I 1 *, 'b ', b ' ' I , * ', ', '. I -a- ~""~"~""""""~~"~""~"""""""~"""~"""""--""-"---~"---""--"-"~- : Member ~?$P..9G-+.,~ ,O$?L$-~~& """"-J ;:::;; I8 I The Planning Director stated this parcel of land ! *::;I8 i is large and could be developed according to the :li;!! l code with no physical difficulties. I :::::: e I I I i::;:: l Points discussed were that C property can build i I::*' '*I ;:: to the property line; and he is surrounded by C : :::;:: I property; that this would be a most desirable i :::;:i : building that will help the City a great deal in : ::;I:, ':I:;: i Planning area No. 1 , and would up-grade it and ge$ :I: :;: I high density development; that basically the fronlt i!iiIi i of the building conforms to the setbacks; that : "e : the super structures would not be too detrimental: iiiiii i to the thought of the surrounding area on setbackb; II:ii: I it was not ideal, but is a good use of the land; : ::/I:; l: I* i that if the swimming pool was set down they would: ;;:'l* I';:;; i not need a variance on Ocean Street. I I i::::: I I I,:,; I I !::;i; i The Planning Director pointed out that the ' ;:I : applicant could have submitted a precise plan so ! IIii: ii;::; i that the Commission could view the variance with :regard to a definite building. I I:I1I' I I i:;::: ;::i:i i The following resolution was presented: I e ;::I:, $4;: I 4;9;' ;A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 404 ::;1;1 f ;granting variances for setbacks as requested on : ;:I::: i the condition that it be built in accordance with! ;I:::: : architectural rendering presented for the 27 unit; e::::: :!';I; :apartment house designed by Bryan G. C. Addicott i I :I:; :for Mr. and iblrs. Ed. H. Leftwich, for the follow-: i ing reasons: I ;:/e; : surrounded by C-2 properly. I I I:;*#* *"I;: I 2. That it could be surrounded by walls and :'I:;: !buildings built to the property line. I 8 ,IliIi I 3. That the front yard setback variance would! ;:::I; :not materially affect anyone as the main building: ;:;I:* ;:::I: !will be setback 15 feet from the property 1Sne. I /4;l :Planning Commission Resolution No. 404. A RESOL-! Munn ::I,;; : )(;x: ' UTION GRANTING A VARIANCE OPI PROPERTY AT 3120 i Palmateeri :xi ; I: IOCEAN STREET, ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF OCEAFI : McCarthy !x: :xi : : !STREET, BETWEEN OAK AVEMUE AND PINE AVEWE, was McComas : i !x: ; I: , ladopted by title only and further reading waived. : Lamb : ; :xi : : i OLD BUSINESS: jted a problem of designating lake Calaveras as a : ':I :ii; :park site because the old Carlsbad Mutual Water i :::::: 'I' :Company bonds were bought as security bonds with i 1::;:: :the Lake being held in trust. He has an appoint- : iment to look into this matter. I I I I I e ' \' I I \,,'., '\ ' ' ' I ; of *.4'%\, '8. ' \' I Name ",, '*& ". "$+ i &I I I #'It 'I e I I I e I I I ' I e :iiii; I I ' 'I I::;/; I 1 I i::::: I 1. That the property is unusual in that it is! :' p:: e I I e 1 I I :::;;: I I I e i Freistadti i ix: I i I I i::::; I 1::;i; ' I I +;;; I (a) Lake Calaveras. The City Attorney repor- !;#'I: ::I:;; I :: 1 e I:;:;: I 8 i::':: I I ;:;::: s I :i:i:! I I :;:::; 1 I 'I:;:; :I? 8 I 1:;:;: i::::: I I:;::, * I:;::: I I ::!!:: I I ii!iii I I :::I:: * I ::;:;: I (a) Freeway siqns. The City Attorney explaided 4:;v;; ::;:;I ;i;::; 1:'; I :i:::: I '*,'I' I I I:, iiii b l :::::: I :' I I I I *e 1)' * I ;@l:I: I I :that the State may allocate funds to plant the : I I I I I I 4~!1!I I I I I I (b) Rules and Regulations of the Planning :Commission. The City Attorney reported working ion the revised rules and regulations and will jhave them for the Commission. L I I I (c) Study of the Revised Preliminary Draft :of DtIJM. The Chairman stated that he felt two !more meetings should complete this study. The :Commission agreed to adjourning the meeting to !Tuesday in the City Engineer's Office. :NEW BUSINESS: I 1 I I I I I I I I -9- c 0 I I I 0 I 0 0 I I :"""""""~"""""--"""""""~"""""""""""""""-"~- isides along the freeway if we have an ordinance regarding signs along the freeway and recommended; : an amendment to the section on freeway signs and : i to send a letter to the Council to consider an i I emergency sign ordinance. The Commission I I ; unanimously agreed that this emergency sign ordi-i i nance should be adopted and that the City Attorney : write to the Council regarding this matter. 0 I Commissioner Lamb asked that a letter be written i to DIYIJE.1 asking them to give a report of the ;Harbor Feasibility Study before public hearings are held oft the Master Plan in order that the ! Commission could evaluate more accurately the i land uses around the lagoon. After considerable i discussion it was agreed that a letter would be : I written to DI+!JM on this matter and that Vice- I i Chairman McComas would sign the letter. I I 0 1 I I 0 I I I I I I 4 4 0 0 I I ADJOURNMENT: I I i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at i ; 10:48 P.PI. to Tuesday, August 17, 1365, at 7:30 ; i o'clock P.N. in the City Engineer's Office. 0 I 0 0 I * 0 I I Respectfully submitted, ! . DOROTHY SOUSA i Recording Secretary 0 I 0 0 I I 1 I 0 0 I 0 I I 0 I I I I t I I 0 I I I I I 0 I 4 * 0 I 0 I I I I I I I I 0 I I I 0 I I I I I 0 t 1 I I I t b l a 0 I I I I 0 I I 0 I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I 0 0 I 0 I 0 I I 0 f b 1 e 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 I * i